Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Recently my boss has asked me about the advantages of Linux as a desktop operating system and if it would be a good idea to install it instead of upgrading to Windows 7 or 8. About ten boxes here are still running Windows XP and would be too old to upgrade to any newer version of Windows. He knows that i am using Linux at work on quite outdated hardware (would have gotten a new PC but never requested new hardware — Linux Mint x64 runs quite well on it) and i always managed to get my stuff done with it. I explained to him that there are no licensing issues with Linux, there is no anti-virus software to deal with and that Linux is generally a bit more efficient on old hardware than operating systems from Microsoft. The boss seems interested." But that's not quite the end; read on for this reader's question.

"Since I am the only guy with Linux experience I would have to support the Linux installations. Now the problem is what works perfectly fine for me may be a horrible experience for some of my coworkers, and even if they would only be using Firefox, Thunderbird and LibreOffice I don't know if I could seriously recommend using Linux as a desktop OS in a business. Instead I want to set up one test machine for users to try it and ask THEM if they like it. The test machine should be as easy and painless to use as possible and not look too different compared to Windows. Which distro and what configuration should I choose for this demo box?"

Portability of learned skills means you don't have to re-train your workers.

Looks like and acts like are totally different things. While looking like windows might get you past the initial "it's not what I know" reaction, it's still going to take training to take windows folks into the brave new world of Linux.

Looks like and acts like are totally different things. While looking like windows might get you past the initial "it's not what I know" reaction, it's still going to take training to take windows folks into the brave new world of Linux.

As contrasted with training users to embrace the utter cluster fsck of nausea inducing purple and green bruised UI vomit that is Windows 8?

I install Debian and Gnome (2 or 3) or KDE for elderly folks at the community center. Guess what? They have less of a problem going from XP to Linux than from XP to Vista, 7 or 8. Gnome's "dead-zone" which prevents shaky hands from accidentally copying when they want to double click is a favorite feature among the elderly. In fact, since Windows8's release I have tripled the number Linux installs and instead of just extending the life of old hardware both young and old folks just want a release from the non-communicative anti-discoverable W8 interface bullshit. I have been met with driver issues downgrading from Win 8 to Win 7 on many occasions, whereas a Linux live CD works out of the box far more reliably. On systems where the install wouldn't work for some reason, e.g. MS surface or surface pro hardware, most folks I meet would rather return it to the store or pawn it than continue using Windows, AOL Kids Edition. [imgur.com]

If barely computer literate fuddie-duddies can cope, then the "Linux retraining cost" is just FUD. Anyone who really can't adapt should be fired for incompetence, heaven forbid a necessary website be changed while they're employed with you.

I swear, I'm waiting to hear about an apartment complex installing new door knobs resulting in thousands of befuddled residents getting trapped in their apartment for days. "It was horrible, I just stared at it for hours! I had no idea how to get the door to open!" said one sobbing resident!

The workers will still want to use MS Word, and Excel, and Exchange for email.

Install OpenOffice or LibreOffice. Create symlinks to swriter.exe on the desktop. Rename them Word. Tell people that Word has a new icon. Set Writer to use DOC as default file format. For Calc you can do the same. This works for most people.

Until a complex Excel macro doesn't work. Until an incoming document from an outside source cannot be read.

You need to stop thinking like a geek converting dear old Dad to LibreOffice for home use home and start thinking about the skill sets and productivity of fifty to five hundred clerical workers with different skill sets and responsibilities.

But from experience... Anyone who switches to Linux, maybe puts up with it for a month and then just buys a new computer or installs the factory-installed OS back on it (eg Windows XP) and decides to just use it until the machine suffers a serious hardware failure. Typically a computer that is still running XP is running non-SATA hard drives, and those are now no longer available, and your only options are PATA2SATA3 devices which are fine if the drive is less than 2TB. Usually the video card (AGP) will blow up, signaling the end of that machine's usefulness.

There are quite a few IDE drives around and will be for quite some time. Even Amazon.com sells them. As for the video card, that would be an issue regardless of the OS.

KDE and Gnome are horrible pieces of crap when it comes to user experience. Linux has a lot of "designed by nerds, for nerds" aspects to it that the average person just doesn't care that much about, and why people prefer Mac OSX if they don't want Windows. OS X doesn't ever throw out the previous user experience. Even iOS doesn't do that. Mac OS feels fundamentally the same since it's inception, and changes were incremental, not drastic (like Windows 2.11 to 3.0, 3.1 to 95 and 95 to XP was the only incremental change, Vista/7 was a drastic change but not terrible compared to the Windows 8/8.1 changes.) Just based on how much changes between version numbers, I'd expect the next version of Windows to throw out the the entire Metro user interface and the Start Menu/desktop interface and it's backwards compatibility and force everyone to use managed.NET 5.0 crap using voice navigation. Ugh no.

The only people who really dislike Gnome or KDE are linux users. Windows users coming to Linux like them very much, with a preference to Gnome over KDE. How do I know this, well, we just finished transitioning another business to use linux on the desktop. This was a smaller deployment with only 150 users, but it was still consistent with the larger ones we have done (with thousands of seats).

Anyway. Short answer, you will fail. Everyone has to be hardcore willing to tinker, which means a lot of lost productivity.

That simply has not been our experience. Users are much more adaptable then people want to give them credit for.

This story says it's from the "sounds like Mint works for you" department, and I think that's your answer. If you're going to have to look after them, then it makes sense to go with what you're most familiar with, especially as Mint shouldn't be too alien to XP users.

Isn't Mint a distribution? So you should be able to make ity look like anything out there. I believe XFCE would look the most familiar.

For the user, look at the desktop. For the admin, look at the distribution.

As an admin, I would probably use something like SUSEStudio.com [susestudio.com], because it would mean I would be able to easily make an installable image that looks likeI would want it with the programs I desire.

A bit of extra work and you have something that is really tailord for your company. You can make two images. One for clients and one for servers. Or go evebn further and edit YaST so you have only one image for several options. Portable, desktop, software selections per department,...

A bit of extra work and you have something that is really tailord for your company. You can make two images. One for clients and one for servers. Or go evebn further and edit YaST so you have only one image for several options. Portable, desktop, software selections per department,...

And, really, unless you invest in the time of managing these machines, including patch roll out and the like... all you're doing is making problems for yourself down the road.

People expect their work computers to work, they expect the process of updating to be hands-off, transparent, and uniform (why does Sally have a completely different version that I do?).

If you're just going to fire up Linux on someone's machine and walk away and leave them to fend for themselves, you should expect major problems and grumbling.

If you haven't put thought into managing the life cycle and support of the machines, you're doing it wrong, and it will bite you in the ass.

It's one thing to install a distro on your own machine. It's entirely something else to deal with all of the compatibility and support issues people will inevitably encounter. This sounds like it's being done quite ad hoc, so you better have a very small shop of people who don't need hand-holding when it comes to computers.

XFCE may look superficially like XP but actually has all sorts of differences that make it irritating as hell to use. Just off the top of my head:

- No decent file explorer. Thunar is abysmal compared to XP's.- Window borders too small, like 1px. Resizing windows is a pain.- Window maximize behaviour is annoying, because you can still drag the window out of fullscreen after it's been maximized, yet dragging it to the top of the screen doesn't automatically fullscreen the window again.- The 2 clipboards, one of which is a "mouse buffer", is so unintuative I would classify it as a bug. Linux desperately needs a unified clipboard.- The start menu (yeah Win8 did away with it but it's bringing it back) is a nightmare. On Windows, its contents can be organized by easily drag/dropping, and generally the programs listing reflects somewhere on the file system. On Linux, no drag/drop,.desktop files all over the place to edit if you want to modify stuff, and the menu editor is broken (like "move up" and "move down" don't work)

Seriously, if IT isn't serving the needs of your business, your IT is staffed with idiots and whiny bitches like the above poster.In the real world, people like you get sacked.

Sorry, but no. In the real world, IT pushes out Windows installs laden with all kinds of crapware (such as McAfee), resulting in systems that run dog-slow and crash and freeze all the time. These IT departments are rewarded for this incompetence with continued employment, bonuses, etc.

I needed to buy a laptop once, and wandered into a Best Buy and started poking at one of the machines. I hadn't seen Win8 before; all of my machines run some linux or other, or Win7 with the classic UI.

I'm curious about the system specs of one machine, so I want to go to Control Panel->System and see. I call over one of the Best Buy reps:

"How do I get out of whatever tonka-toys demo software this is and back to the OS? I want to check the specs."

I would recommend plain ol' Ubuntu since, imho, they have made the most polished Linux desktop experience for those with no prior linux experience. If you're worried that Unity may be sensory overload for some of your users -- consider installing Xubuntu and doing a little customization to give it the same general feel that your user's XP desktop would have.

From his question, it sounds like the Unity interface would be too much for their low-end PCs, so plain Ubuntu is out of the question. Heck, even on my mid-range PC the Unity menu is a bit sluggish. I've never actually used Mint, but it looks like it's a good way to go.

XFCE, last I used it, was good but just slightly too different in its behavior to be a good first step into Linux for traditional Windows XP users.

Not sure why they'd be trying so hard to save themselves from buying new PCs.. Probably the XP machines run like ass as it is.
Linux as a general use machine for people that are so bad at computers they still use XP.... just no.. hell no. tell the boss to stop being so cheap and upgrade to this decade

Honestly, this is the solution. Unless you and your coworkers are working for free, the man hours you will waste on transitioning and people having issues with the new machines, be it not knowing the file system or the differences between MS Word and LibreOffice. You should run the numbers and find out.The machines you need, over their projected lives of 4 years cost $X per employee per day. That $X is likely less than 30 minutes. Is it likely that the new systems will cost you more than the same amount of man-hours in conversion and support?

Get new Optiplexes for ~$800, with Win7 Pro, and be done with it.Something like this:Dell 469-3925 OptiPlex 7010 MT i7-3770 3.4G 4GB 500GB DVDRW W7P 64-Bithttp://www.provantage.com/dell-469-3925~7DELD05L.htmDual monitor support, it'll do everything you need for the next 4 years. And if you want to put Linux on there, slap a different drive in and do it. Limping along with crappy old hardware is false economy.

This is a great point. If what you really want is to save on hardware, you can migrate the whole company to TinyCore. It's really cool, but I don't know if you want to go through the process of teaching everyone how to use it.

Not sure why they'd be trying so hard to save themselves from buying new PCs.. Probably the XP machines run like ass as it is.Linux as a general use machine for people that are so bad at computers they still use XP.... just no.. hell no. tell the boss to stop being so cheap and upgrade to this decade

I think this is correct.

Even though I'm at work, running Ubuntu 12.04 with LXDE, and I have full ability to do everything I need to do, I wouldn't want to be/forced/ to use any OS or tool that wasn't the best for my work. I'm a software engineer, working on linux embedded systems, so having a linux desktop is the best for me. Our IT also allows linux to be run on the desktop, but doesn't support a lot of the details. THAT's the best way to go. Provide your users with a wide range of tools. For those that don't care, give them windows. Forcing them to use Linux won't win anyone over.

That said, I'd set up LXDE + Ubuntu 12.04 (or later), and give that to people to try. Just don't force them to use it.

You will save yourself a lot of trouble by migrating the backend (servers, database) to linux first, and only then start on the frontend (workstations, user interface). You will also enjoy a larger benefit immediately, as the backend is where linux will really save you time and effort (once you have it configured).

The thing is, Windows 7 also runs great on older hardware. I just put it on a Hp ZE2000 from 2005, which isn't at all a powerful machine and it is running smoothly and very stable.

Something like Ubuntu won't run much better (Although Xubuntu or Lubuntu may well), and AV software is not the concern it was back in the day. The free MS Security essentials and a gateway check will be more than enough.

The real issue is software. Can the users rely on LibreOffice and Chrome/Firefox? Or is there windows software they rely on or will need?

Go with what makes sense according to needs and cost restrictions, not because of an ideology....

The company itself can have hundreds, so long as it's not installed on more than 10 you're still good.

And, what is the benefit of MS Security Essentials if you have it on 10 out of hundreds of PCs?

You still need an AV solution for the rest of them, in which case you've accomplished nothing by having it only on a fraction of your machines. And if you have to manage the AV on a larger number of machines that don't have MSSE... WTF is the point?

IMNSHO it's more like you were lucky enough to be able to find 64-bit drivers. Lots of 64-bit machines have shipped pre-loaded with 32-bit Windows because the OEMs didn't want to be bothered to recompile their drivers. I've put 64-bit Linux on those same machines without issue.

[url=http://lubuntu.net/]lubuntu[/url] is pretty lightweight, and looks pretty similar to windows as far as I can tell. Plus, it's all Ubuntu under the hood (for better or for worse). You know you'll have updates for a looong time coming.

This was exactly my experience when "upgrading" an old 512 MB CoreDuo laptop to Linux. GNOME 2 was too heavy and LXDE was lacking features. My first try was with LXDE, but OpenBox does not give the option to move windows without drawing the contents(Bug 3342). As a result windows operations are painfully slow and this was a major downgrade from XP's user experience.

After trying both the nouveau and proprietary drivers, I ended up using the much heavier Mate (GNOME 2) based Mint. Mate has the option to disab

In my experience it's much easier to get Linux in the workplace as a server, and here there's lots of areas where it's as good as or better than Windows. Start with a LAMP server for internal web; use it to host a Wiki for documentation.

They are employees.. so they do what they are told to do by their boss.

Now developing a proper business case for your boos to show that you have considered all of the angles (installation, administration, education, usage and changeover issues) , and how that affects the bottom line is a totally different question.

Interoperability between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office is less than ideal in my opinion. You will always run into some issues, with references, equations, fonts, something.
If Linux has all of the software you need to get the job done, then go for it. If you still use programs for Windows, using a VM or dual booting is not worth it in my opinion, better off staying with Windows.
If you do go Linux it is better to go full force: change over everyone. Have everyone use LibreOffice and make.odt,.ods, etc standard for your workplace. You should have minimal problems.
Do not recommend Linux to someone if you're not the IT guy and it is not your job. You will be blamed for everything that goes wrong and will waste time fixing or explaining differences. Do use a spin creation system for your distro of choice and have all of your software pre-installed for your tasks to minimize customization and difference between workstations.

Zorin OS [zorin-os.com] is claimed to be designed specifically with Windows XP refugees in mind. They try to get the GUI essentials similar to Windows. It might be a smoother transition to Mint and eventually Arch (I'm kidding about Arch, of course).

Observe the desktop users, see what they're doing, investigate FOSS alternatives that run on Linux. Find a distro that has all that working out the box. Customise the distro so that the default user setup has all that ready and waiting in the desktop menus. Congratulations! You're now a sysadmin on top of whatever you were before.
If you like the sound of this, make it happen. If not tell your boss to employ a sysadmin to make the above happen, maybe you can get yourself in on the interview, maybe you can

If you are going to be managing these things, you might want to go with some sort of thinclient architecture with a beefy server, serving the old ex-XP boxes. This will reduce the configuration hassle long term, and make those crappy XP boxes seem pretty snappy. The downside, and it can be a doozy, if the server goes down or the networking is lousy, no one will be able to work.

So a while back I tried several different Linux desktops. Probably around 6 or 7. I used each one for about a week or two. They all had their Pros and Cons, but I went back to Ubuntu. I went back(it was the first one I tried...) for the stability, ease of use and software available.

And yes, I know all about the concerns with Amazon and how RMS feels about Ubuntu(which for the most part I agree with).
However I would reccommend it.

This is very true and could be in the back of his mind.
And even with him being the only noted one in his place that uses Linux, he may already have the job security track secured, at the least.

I just worry about the scope creep of this. First its installations, then management, teaching, troubleshooting, on call at odd hours of the night.
It hasnt even been noted to what his main role is, but if he does not work in IT, does he want to end up there? Or does he think this could springboard himself into upp

The largest barrier to getting anything in the workplace but windows is a common ground with which you can collaborate and work. If you want to replace say, sharepoint, you can expect to have to sell everyone on the idea. your replacement needs to work seamlessly, just like sharepoint.

if you have a vmware deployment, linux is pretty much a non-starter as anything but a guest OS. you cant administer vsphere from linux, at least not in a way that wont make you hate your life. Many timecard systems and in house software packages might be predicated entirely on windows Internet Explorer, so the loss of ADP might piss off accounting. determine your userbase and its needs first.

Switching people from exchange is a daunting task, but egroupware and others can step up to the plate with a web-based UI. its also a huge cost saver. Whether or not your office wants that is another matter entirely. your linux systems will have to authenticate to AD, and never the other way around because windows just cant. while Libreoffice sure is a nice replacement for a new office, its a disaster when it comes to some of the finer points of complex excel spreadsheets, pivot tables, and the latest doc format. Lync, er, microsoft communicator as it was once called, has tentative support in linux but you lose helpful features like auto away and auto populate and that "call this person" feature I wonder if anyone ever uses..

doing this isnt easy. Ive spent 5 years of my career doing it, and the biggest hurdle is going to be your users. They want features like desktop sharing for meetings and gantt charts for planning. Linux doesnt really 'get' it like microsoft. The key is to make sure the channels of communication between windows users and linux users, be they desktop application level or enterprise, is uninterrupted. sometimes a quick switch from say lync to jabber is best. in other places you might want to phase things like sharepoint out over time. make sure you know how they work, and have a plan to provide a service that helps them achieve what theyre being paid to do.

another pitfall to be wary of is Microsofts jagged edge. Decreasing site licenses will beget unforseen costs like losing your Azure discount or more expensive license seats overall. the purchase terms will also change randomly and rapidly in an attempt to kill your linux idea from the management down (they do this to force meetings with your managers, who in turn dont invite you because its about a budget and not a computer to them.) Once I weaned a prior company off lync and exchange, I had microsoft representatives drop in entirely unannounced and ask for a meeting with almost every manager they could find (and me.) They will hound you with phonecalls, bombard you with junk mail, and chew up your time like never before. They do not like being shown the door.

I'm always encouraged to see Linux in the workplace, but it might or might not be the right answer.

The catch here is that no matter how much you save by upgrading to any new OS, the cost of support and usability issues will be much greater than than the cost of the OS even if new PCs are included. Focus on total life cycle cost, and it may be cheaper to upgrade the PCs to windows to avoid the training, ongoing teaching and hand holding required to shift to Linux of any flavor. Of course, if you've got a c

You might also find that for 2 employees, switching away from Windows is just not an option. There may be an accounting package or some other piece of software that they're using where changing OS is just not an option. Before you even think about making a change, take a very detailed inventory of the software that your users need. Especially the things that only get used a few times a year. That's where you'll usually find your biggest stumbling block.

If you're working with people who are comfortable with technology, then making such a transition should not cause too much pain. Annoyances yes, especially with file format compatibility issues, but nothing too serious. You'll be answering lots of questions, but the questions themselves will be from a position of needing some details filled in, not failure to understand basic concepts.

On the other hand, if you're working with people for whom computers and technology are PFM (Pure @#%$ing Magic) then ANY CHANGE, no matter how trivial, will lead to nervous breakdowns. For such people, use of a computer involves memorized incantations (if not outright prayers) based on mouse movements, clicks, and magic words typed into the screen. If these change, even slightly, they will be utterly lost and terrified -- and they'll blame YOU.

If this is the case, then you're going to have to create a standardized installation of Linux with a normal desktop interface (Cinnamon, KDE) and then TRAIN your employees on how to use it. Mint is a good choice. I'm using the KDE version of Mint 16 on all my workstations. The cinnamon version is also perfectly usable. There are of course other options. The key is to create an environment that is as close to what they know as possible. Not necessarily in terms of how it looks, but how it BEHAVES.

Even so, there will always be some differences that will trip such users up. You guys might have to hire a temp worker whose sole job will be to train and support your employees until they learn the new incantations.

The good news is that moving from XP/Vista/7 to a normal desktop Linux distro will actually be easier than trying to retrain these employees to use the malware that is Windows 8.

On the other hand, if you're working with people for whom computers and technology are PFM (Pure @#%$ing Magic) then ANY CHANGE, no matter how trivial, will lead to nervous breakdowns. For such people, use of a computer involves memorized incantations (if not outright prayers) based on mouse movements, clicks, and magic words typed into the screen. If these change, even slightly, they will be utterly lost and terrified -- and they'll blame YOU.... Even so, there will always be some differences that will trip such users up. You guys might have to hire a temp worker whose sole job will be to train and support your employees until they learn the new incantations.

Yeah, tech savvy people who haven't done IT support often don't quite understand this. There are lots of people-- people of all ages and backgrounds-- who have no understanding whatsoever about how computers work. All they know is, "I move the mouse here and I click this button." They don't understand how it works. They just know, "When I want to process an expense report, I click on this button, then that button, then I type in this product code, and then I hit Enter 5 times." Or it might be that they

Instead I want to set up one test machine for users to try it and ask THEM if they like it.

I guarantee that in this form, the result of the test will be that THEY won't like it. People fear the new and unknown and need positive incentives to change.

So, offer THEM the choice of one person, to be drawn at random from a hat, being fired to pay for e cost of new PCs vs switching to Linux and everyone keeping their jobs. Then you'll find they like Linux lots.

Also, keep in mind that 'supporting' users takes much more time than you might naively guess. Make sure that your efforts to 'support Linux' don't turn you into the unproductive member of the office.

XP users will bitch and moan enough already if they have to use Windows 7 or 8. Giving them Linux would be much worse.

Here are some common misconceptions about end users:1. They are stupid and only do stupid thing with there PC: Firefox and libreOffice is not the limit to a persons PC usage. They are going to do more complex things even if they don't realize it. They will want to share files over the network, they may want to attach their Camera to their PC, Video Conference, Do some graphics manipulations, even sometimes do basic system admin on their PC, such as updates or putting in a driver. You need to give them more credit then most people do. Linux for the desktop tends to have a doughnut hole in usability. You get Granny Open your program and browse the web. You got advanced user where you can script and program all you want... The hole is in the Moderate user category.

2. Their PC's will work great with Linux: Who really fully checks the Linux compatibility list when getting a PC. Especially if you initially get a windows PC. Even old PC's you may find that a network controller isn't supported, or a video driver never really worked right with that screen. Hardware makers usually make sure their stuff works on windows first then perhaps in Linux if they feel like there is a market for it.

3. Vendors/Customers/Partners will bend backwards to help you keep supported. I am sending you a DOCX with a Macro in it for you to view. Are you really going to have them redo their work so you can view that document. A vendor may give you a crappy convert. The customer will defiantly give you lip. A partner may question you.

4. We don't use Legacy Software: There is always that piece of legacy software that you have that makes porting expensive.

I'd give it a lot of thought before you spearheaded this initiative as it comes with a lot of personal risk. "This linux crap that Bob had us switch over to" will get the blame by the employees for any and all application or IT related issues.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Linux will be the cause, just that it will always be the presumed culprit.

Since Mint is a derivative of Ubuntu which is a derivative of Debian I'd stick with that. You have the support of the Debian/Ubuntu lines and the added multimedia functionality of Mint which means you don't have to configure any of it yourself. I wish Ubuntu included the multimedia stuff but I think some of it isn't FOSS. You will want to make sure whatever you choose won't run afoul of any licensing.
Had you given any thought to running a Terminal Server? I don't know what the cost of the server license an

machines will get Linux to replace XP? I ask that because you will be the "guy who made us switch from MS" and take the rap for every problem that arises. Document mangled? Blame Linux (and your decision to switch). Missed email? That never happened in Outlook, must be Linux' (and the guy who made us switch) fault. I am not saying that such blame would be reasonable or even that you will get blamed, but there is more to switching than just finding a good distro. Ask yourself, "do I have the time and qualifi

If you want to know how to start, your first step would be to audit all the software that people use to get their jobs done. Once you have a complete list, ask these questions for each piece of software:

Does that software run on Linux?

If not, is there a comparable piece of software that would have all the functionality we need?

If not, can we live without the missing functionality?

If you get to the end of those questions and the answer is "no", then you should probably cut your losses and accept that you'll have to stick with Windows. If you can answer "yes" to at least one of these questions for every piece of software on your list, then select some users to be in a pilot program. You should find at least a couple semi-influential but fairly patient power users and set up a new test machine for them.

Does that software run on Linux?
- Or a platinum rating on WINE?
- Can we use our XP licenses for a VM if need be?

Eh.... it depends. I'd be more open to WINE, though for business purposes it's often not worth it to run non-native apps. Running XP in a VM has its purposes (mostly in running a very isolated application), but as a general rule it's not going to actually solve your problems. It's like, "Congratulations! You've gotten rid of the headache with managing a bunch of Windows XP machines! You've replaced it with managing a bunch of Windows XP virtual machines, which is almost as bad, plus now you have to mana

If your boss has any basic science education try to sell them on the "a monoculture is at more risk to attack" approach. that's not entirely false, but mostly it sounds good and pointy-hairs tend to swallow it.

Then choose some version of Ubuntu or Red-Hat, but be ready to suffer all the horrors of dealing with the document, spreadsheet, calendar exchange formats. Those issues, more than any other, will spell failure. (just one middle-level moron who can't open your LibreOffice 'power-point' stack and you

RedHat Enterprise makes a poor desktop, too much tweaking needed. Ubuntu is better desktiop but the UI which is the main focus of the distro sucks ass. Why not go with Mint where they have good desktops (MATE, Cinnamon, and to somewhat lesser extent KDE) as focus

10 boxes on windows and a least a couple semi-power users of one or more office applications with defined workflows that help them get their job done. If all they use is webmail and surf the web then yeah but what 10 box office does that. Nobody there manages their everything in outlook?

What kind of hardships you will face totally depends on details of your workplace and work. I mean, if you are developing for xbox live or something, you probably don't want to force Linux on your colleagues. If you are doing hardcore science, you probably are already using Linux. Do you have a lot of legacy applications? One important legacy app can screw up your transition.

I tried many flavor of ubuntu and now I always use Xubuntu.
Simple and fast. Set automatic update and make two users, Administrator and User. Never give away the administrator pwd.
Install vino and set permission for remote desktop.
Be clear on one Thing!!! You are not the one to ask for it, they asked for it! They can change any time they want and pay for!

Instead I want to set up one test machine for users to try it and ask THEM if they like it.

This experiment will have a predetermined outcome: the users will not going to like it (if they even bother to try it) because its is different. Don't do it unless you realy need an excuse not to transition to linux.

If I were you I would do a gradual change:

1. Before you do anything else, do your homework. Make sure you can run everything you need for your business on linux. This means checking with everybody and his sister in the company and going over every single app and document that is being genera

Basically no 3rd party special corporate software runs on Linux so the answer is almost always no. It doesn't even work well with Exchange. But if the system is for web browsing, Google Docs or an ODF office suite, and file storage, go for it. Otherwise, the lack of any domain controls or ability to join a Windows domain kills it in most cases. Out of the 42 systems here at my company, none of them could run Linux or Apple. Every single one needs access to our shared drive that's domain-permissions con

#1 - some business users will be totally unable to function without microsoft outlook. They will have ZERO interest or patience in learning thunderbird (or whatever) and will become INCREDIBLY vocally disgruntled that it doesn't do the fonts/alarms/animatedsigniatures/auto-invite-replies/whatever the way "it always worked in outlook"

#2 - file sharing. If your in a typical "business" environment, the functionality (not saying it's good or bad) of windows SMB/CIFS sharing will be incredibly difficult to replace. I've used NFS to achieve similar results with a graphical file browser, but you will be surprised how many users copy/paste files instead of drag/drop and the minor UI differences will cause them to clam up FAST.

#3 - proprietary business apps. Not even niche line-of-business apps - but stuff like the UPS Worldship client. It's possible to operate without them, but would/will take SERIOUS business realignment and shake-up to do.

#4 - Welcome to the IT department, you're the new system administrator and helpdesk guy. Your job will vanish if the linux deployment has any speedbumps.

#5 - If your network uses radioActive Directory, prepare for pain. Several years ago, I successfully built a gentoo fileserver running samba, extended file attributes, pam plugins etc that was 100% "integrated" into the company active directory - you could even right-click a file from a windows box and play with the fine-grained permissions with individual user ACLs and stuff, and after some trial and error it even worked - but it was a SERIOUS pain in the ass. Getting a bunch of desktops to not only authenticate against an AD server, but to handle things like home directory creation, user ID translation, etc, intelligently will be a pain in the rear to setup and maintain. Security patches to your AD server _WILL_ break the duct tape.

#6 - You will very quickly learn exactly how scared of computers 50% of end-users are. They perform their tasks by rote, and if something (say, plugging in a USB stick) doesn't behave in a way they expect it to, you should expect constant show-stopper-sounding complaints to the boss. Get used to hearing things like "Ginger says she can't do her job." on a weekly or daily basis.

#7 - connecting to printers/scanners/whatever shared off some windows box will end up being a LOT more problematic then you think.

#8 - If users can't load their comet cursor, change their background to some animated waterfall, or have other specific desktop tweaks like they're used to, expect "Ginger can't work like this" complaints, no matter how trivial it is to you and me.

#9 - "My excel macros don't work with this openoffice calc thing" turns out to be more of a actual show-stopper then you think.

I'd say that attempting to start it in the workplace on outdated machines with people who've likely been using the same OS for over a decade because they've never been upgraded is the wrong way to go about it. While it is a decent use case for Linux on the desktop, you're also setting it up for failure.

Showcasing it on decently modern machines and with users who (likely) aren't so entrenched to show that it's capable of competing with a modern OS, and THEN taking the, "Oh, and this will also run on that old

...even if they would only be using Firefox, Thunderbird and LibreOffice...

I just finished installing Debian Wheezy with XFCE4 on the laptop of a friend whose usage pretty much fits this description, and she loves it. (She *hated* Win 7 but quite liked WinXP). Personally I stay away from Ubuntu because, as I understand it, an upgrade is somewhat more painful than it is for Debian. So if you're interested in Linux Mint, you might want to try Linux Mint Debian Edition, (LMDE), as it has the slickness of Mint but maintains rolling releases.

The distro is up to you. The desktop is up to them. Give them all the possible options.

If you use a distro like openSUSE, you can easily add KDE, GNOME, XFCE, LXDE, Enlightenment and others. I would probably stick with the main three, with a personal like to XFCE.

Alxso see if there are people who use excel intensivaly, because that could be tricky.

So you choose the distro, they choose the desktop. Takea distro that you already use. The desktop should be available for it.

And don't forget that installing it is the easy part. Maintaining it and the next 10 years (with upgrades and new hardware) will be the hard part. One last tip. Don't talk about free as in gratis, because management will then asume that there is no cost and the moment anything computer related shows up on budget, it will be confusing and you will be called a liar.

You can also play around with SUSE Studio [susestudio.com] so you easily can make images that contain not all applications, but only those that you need, including anything you made yourself.

The builds could be used as beta for the final release for yoiur company.

You're going to spend way too much time trying to get Samba to do all the funny stuff that an ancient farm of XPs has set up to share. You're going to have to do this in stages, which means replicating the exact sharing structure of the old machines. The users won't be able to do this themselves. ("After editing/etc/samba/smb.conf, restart Samba for the changes to take effect." - Ubuntu documentation)

Then you have to get everybody converted from Microsoft Office to OpenOffice/LibreOffice. They're not that compatible. Some documents and spreadsheets will be broken. Templates won't transfer very well. Everyone's workflow will be disrupted. The overhead of doing this for a small shop will be higher than the savings.

The small office environment is where the Microsoft environment does best. Upgrade to Windows 7, one machine at a time. Windows 7 is a good OS. (The solid Microsoft OSs were NT 3.51, Windows 2000, and Windows 7.)

The only downside to using Linux in the workplace doesn't become apparent unless you regularly exchange documents with people in other locations, be they coworkers, clients, or what have you. At that point, you will discover that people outside your office will send you Microsoft format documents and not only expect you to be able to read them, but that you will be able to modify them and send them back.

While a pure linux shop can just use "Libre Office" and whatever other tools work well for a given circumstance, that idea just flat out fails when you're collaborating with folks who are using current Microsoft tools. The people in the home office don't like being told their document doesn't look right because they used a feature that's standard in Microsoft Office 2013, but that LIbre Office doesn't implement or doesn't get quite right. They *REALLY* don't like it when they send you a document and you send them back something forced down to Word 98 compatibility format.

So, that's the headache you're setting yourself (and your boss) up for if you switch the office (or part of it) to Linux. If you're all internal, it's easier to work around, but will still become an issue from time to time. If you don't share documents often, then it's a moot point.

Yet. There are some basics that can easily be dealt with regardless of what his other requirements are. He even mentions some of them in his post.

Basically, he can start out with installing cross platform apps on Windows and seeing how readily the rest of his office can migrate to those. If the rest of his office is left running what is essentially a Linux desktop without Linux itself, then he can ditch Windows.

Wish I had some mod points, this is a great step that the submitter didn't mention that could give 90% of your answer very quickly. Put LibreOffice on a few machines and have them use that for a while. If they are baffled and can't cope, end of story right there. If they take to it like a breeze, you can probably pilot it to more people. You should be able to tell by taking a few intermediate steps like this.

You don't even say what the fuck your company does or even what industry you're in...

That shouldn't much matter. What the employees are engaged in and what they do might be useful information. If you can surf the web on Windows, you can do it with any OS, but if these are engineers needing Matlab or Autocad, or graphic artists needing Photoshop, it may be an uphill struggle doomed to fail miserably.

There is some valuable information in here. The problem the submitter made was talking about the cost of the hardware and software and ignoring any support costs. His company doesn't want to spend money upgradeing hardware or moving to windows 7. Do you think the boss wants to spent money on someone to support linux? What's going to happen is the submitter is going to get stuck supporting it and probably not get a pay increase for doing so while starting to get bitched at for not getting his work done.

There is a fallacy in your statement. Buying Windows doesn't get you any more than using free linux. Both Microsoft and linux distros provide updates, so that is a wash and both require somebody to maintain/support it, so that cost, too is a wash. In either case, your time is of the same value and not dependent on the operating system in question.

Powershell is just a shell. Does it have SSH? tar? bzip? awk? sed? a real grep alternative (findstr doesn't count)? rsync (robocopy doesn't count as it can't work over SSH)? tr? a million other tiny commands that can be linked together in novel ways?

I run Windows, Linux and even a couple of Unix servers. I do not use powershell, I sure as hell have no use for Cmdlets. If I need to on Windows I will still use batch or WSH. Powershell wants to be a programming language and that want wrecks it as a decent command line. If you think that Powershell is a good replacement for a powerful and flexible Linux command line then it is obvious that you have no idea what can be done with a Linux command line.

IPC sucks in Powershell and you are thinking like a programmer. When you do work on servers you do not need or want a "Proper programming language" you want something that ties your entire system together and allows you to quickly make use of it all. Not just IPC. Linux command line runs cirlces around powershell in IPC (Which to those of us who do work on servers know is very important) the difficulty in starting up stuff in the background and tailing stuff you start up. grep, awk and sed. Then lets ad in the fact that most 3rd party tool in Linux expect to be able to be called in the command line. I have to tell you the ability to pop up a command line and tell GIMP to grab every.png in a specific directory rotate it 90 degrees and resize it to 900x900 then rename the file by appending it with "_900x900" and sticking them all into a new directory, then edit the permissions of the directory itself to allow others to see it, hit enter and move on to something else is pretty fucking useful. And it is soo much more powerful than that. It is not just for administration. Although the linux (everything is a file) system makes this much easier.

What is wrong with pipes working to give you power? What is wrong with massive third party app support for command line. I don't get you. I have Windows servers where they work well, Linux servers where they are best and a couple of SCO Unix servers that I can not get rid of. I use Windows servers and am able to get work done on them. Powershell though is unused. Tried it, played with it, worked with it. Hate it.

Seeing as how his question says "About ten boxes here are still running Windows XP" I don't think he uses a single thing you mention. Not EVERY company has 50k machines, not do they have a huge staff with many years of experience.

That said, it all comes down to "what tools do you need to do your job?" Some places live and die by Office-specific features, other places wouldn't even notice if you switched office suites as long as they can use a spreadsheet app to make color-coded 2-dimensional lists. He's goi

Access Control Lists came from VMS. UNIX knows root and non root. Yes someone added a patch to Linux to include. But is not integrated with the platform and most apps are not ACL aware. With OU's you can set them for locations in AD with group policies and move with a mouse click by the thousands.

Due to sexual harassment lawsuits businesses need a way to track usage. Everyone uses.pac files with IE.

Doesn't matter if it's win specific or not. Shit needs to get done. GPOs do that. Linux never had an answer t

Wile the AC made this into a joke it really is the best advice if you do this badly.

Rather than be the person who is going to be perceived as the one who pushes Linux into your workspace I would recommend getting in a consultant from a reputable firm and get written recommendations on "how" or even "why not to". If this is done properly then everyone looks good. A Professional Consultant could come up with relevant recommendations in less then a week (assuming a small organization of say less than 100) co